Public Norms and Aspirations

The Turn to Institutions in Action

Willem Salet

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351619516
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architektur
• Subtopic: Stadtplanung & Landschaftsgestaltung

The aspirations of individuals, organizations, and states, and their perceptions of problems and possible solutions circulate fast in this instantaneous society. Yet, the deliberation of the underlying public norms seems to escape the attention of the public. Institutions enable people to have reliable expectations of one another even when they are unsure of each other's aspirations and purposes. Public norms enable people to act under conditions of increasing uncertainty. To fulfill this role in society, institutions need enhancement, maintenance, and innovation.

Public Norms and Aspirations aims to improve the methodology of planning research and practice by exploring the co-evolution of institutional innovation and the philosophy of pragmatism in processes of action. As most attention in planning research and planning practices goes to the pragmatic approaches of aspirations and problem solving, the field is awaiting an upgrade of institutional perspectives. This book aims to explore the interaction of institutional and pragmatic thought and to suggest how these two approaches might be integrated and applied in successful planning research. Searching this combination at the interface of sociology, planning, and law, Salet opens a unique niche in the existing planning literature.

1

The Evaporation of Institutions

Institutions – Between Viscosity and Volatility

A pressing problem of our time is the increasing ignorance of institutions. When you follow the political debate in cities and states on issues such as climate change, political refugees, or the social polarization in spread-out urban areas, you may feel embarrassed by the velocity with which objectives, problem definitions, and supposed solutions are circulated. The deliberation on public norms, however, remains on the side-lines. In this book, we understand institutions as sets of public norms that condition the interaction between subjects. Institutions are not evident; they need recognition, maintenance, and innovation to keep their meaning in ongoing social practices. It is important to recognize that public norms and aspirations of public action are not the same: they express different – and often contrasting – layers of changing reality. Aspirations are intentions or purposes to solve problems whereas public norms are general conditions and rules shaping a context in which aspirations may be realized. Public norms provide normative guidance to processes of purposive action. Without reference to public norms, purpose seeking systems would run wild.

Social interaction organizes itself not only through the fast pace of purposive change but also through gradually changing patterns of public norms. Institutions are needed to enable society to function under conditions of imperfect knowledge; they provide the reliability of social conduct necessary to fulfill the divergent aspirations of a plurality of social subjects in circumstances of increasing complexity and uncertainty. Planning is inherently occupied with human aspirations and the search for solutions to social problems; however, planning cannot achieve true legitimacy and effectiveness without simultaneously considering the meaning of institutions. The aim of this book is to conceptualize the legitimacy and effectiveness of planning in a co-evolution of public norms and public aspirations in processes of action: as a challenge of designing the dialectic of normative and practical judgment.

One of my colleagues in planning once sighed, “why are you bothering so much about institutions, planning is about real problems in a changing world, while institutions are frozen rules; searching for institutions breathes the air of a nineteenth century graveyard.” This was not a baseless comment: taking an institutional approach in planning is a delicate choice; it is not evident, in either practice or in scientific research. In planning practice, a planner is never charged to investigate institutions, rather he/she is asked to solve real problems. To make an institutional deliberation of the challenge to solve problems requires an extra step, both from a practitioner and a researcher. Institutions are usually not overt, they may be hidden, and sometimes there needs to be an explicit conflict over norms to discover the meaning of an institution. In short, taking an institutional perspective in practice or research is all but evident. However, such an institutional approach may prove very helpful, not only for providing additional justification for public action but also for understanding and improving its effectiveness.

Institutions have the image of imposing prohibitive constraints on dynamic processes of action: they carry the odium of being hierarchic, inert, and unchangeable. The problem of institutional viscosity has been raised numerous times. It is true, the patterning of institutional norms is often slow to change. This is not necessarily a problem as it means that institutional norms transcend the particular characteristics of ad hoc situations in time and space. Public norms and purposive action follow different rhythms. Public norms are more general than situated action and reproduce their historic genesis. Because of their wider scope in space and time, institutions are more generalized and they also include many upholders of the norm. The constituents of the norm reform their position under changing circumstances – in particular when they encounter new challenges and situations – however, they do not usually change their position all at the same time or in the same direction. This may explain why institutional innovation usually occurs gradually rather than abruptly. The evolution of institutions occurs gradually via their permanent contextualization in new situations (Salet, 2002). When institutions lean too heavily on the expectations of the past, they tend to become controversial and face changeable episodes of institutional void (Hajer, 2003). This fluid state creates favorable conditions for active institutional innovation, and new institutional norms may enable and accelerate new actions (Giddens, 1984). Thus, institutions maintain a precarious relationship between consolidation and innovation. The role of institutions is not just to constrain, but also to enable purposive action by providing the reliability of mutual expectations between different subjects.

The allegation of institutions being “hierarchical” and “inert,” often rests on the frequent confusion between the layers of institution and organization. Institutions are not the same as organizations (Scott, 1995), an example of the latter being the organization of government. Institutional norms of democracy, state, and law do, however, condition the actual behavior of government. State institutions are not massive or opaque; instead they condition organization which might be opaque. The normative content of state institutions is concerned with the fundamental rights and expectations of citizens, rather than the hierarchical structures of state organizations. Indeed, the increasing gap between the “institution” and “organization” of state power is alarming. This difference will be extensively demonstrated in the Dutch case of post-war strategic spatial planning later in this chapter.

On the other side of the coin to institutional viscosity, the looseness of institutions is becoming an increasing concern today, yet it has been studied relatively infrequently. Institutional volatility relates to the vulnerable foundation of public norms. As highlighted earlier, the existence, reproduction, and effective validation of public norms is not evident; their genesis is a permanent challenge for both citizens, social groups, and states. Public norms are validated in social interaction and reproduce the prevailing powers in society; yet public norms are dissimilar to the ad hoc coalitions of power as they often encompass conditions on these powers as well. Institutions make the Office of President an extremely powerful position; however, holders of the Office who think of setting the Office to their own hand will be corrected by the same institutions as well. The presidency is larger than the president. Sets of public norms carry the wisdom of history and social acceptance but also need – at each time of this trajectory – active reproduction, maintenance, and innovation to enable a continuing normative binding of public action (Kriele, 1981). Institutions are not given, they are a permanent struggle. Public norms may become thin or they may lose their effective meaning for different reasons.

Most institutional norms are not even formal or written. They operate – often in large systems – as a “tacit reciprocity” among subjects (Fuller, 1964). The development and maintenance of tacit reciprocity between a multitude of subjects is essential, but, it also makes institutional norms extremely vulnerable. A plural multitude has to uphold the vital meaning of institutional norms. An active mediation through public debate, the media, social spokespeople, and political representatives (framing, discourses, etc.) is required to uphold this magic. People do not like their actions to be conditioned by rules; they tend to frame rules as “them” instead of “us.” However, once framed like this, the meaning of an institution begins to evaporate. One example is the institution of the European Union, which used to be framed in reference to “us” but today is increasingly framed in reference to “them.” Creating the plausibility of “us” in the foundation and sustenance of social institutions requires a continuing process of justifying public norms in processes of action. The social meaning of institutions is not locked in cloisters or libraries, it can only be tested and grow in the same social processes of action where aspirations (objectives, targets, and possible solutions of problems) are identified and tried out. This process of justifying public norms in the processes of action is at the heart of planning. The quintessence of planning and policy-making is in the dialectic of public norms and purposive strategies in processes of social interaction. The attempt to rediscover and revitalize the magic of this encounter and dialectic is the challenge of this book: the revitalization of institutions in action.

Institutions Make a Difference

The ignorance of the role of public norms, a situation which we are currently experiencing, has not yet been adequately investigated; there are many reasons and overlapping causes that might explain this process. The making, or the “affirming” and “reaffirming” of institutions has become an increasingly complex matter due to the plurality of groups in the virtually interconnected societies of today. It requires a particular sort of public dialogue to identify institutional norms that transcend the scope of primary sensations in social media as well as the instrumental targeting of objectives, problems, and solutions in policy-making processes (Healey, 1997). Some observers try to explain the erosion of institutional meaning today by looking to the growth of conflicts over public norms. This might be the case; however, it is difficult to say whether this is because the social implacability of public norms is increasing. Conflicts about public norms are not extraordinary, they have occurred throughout history. Public norms are not necessarily just and fair, but instead reproduce the evolving set of normative conditions in a society, including asymmetric relations of power. The establishment of public norms might be seen as controversial to some groups in society, but in order to get institutionalized they need identification (at least recognition) and affirmation by the groups that they concern. The institution of private property is not known for its fairness but it has been normalized through time and recognized not only by the “haves” but also by the “have-nots” (Salet, 2017). A social conflict over public norms is not necessarily a problem for their credibility. Conflicts about public norms reveal and actualize the (sometimes hidden) meaning of institutions. To deal seriously with agony and conflict, without necessarily negotiating to a point of agreement, deepens the meaning of social norms and demarcates their scope (Gualini, 2001, 2015; Mouffe, 2013). A conflict might turn out to become an opportunity rather than a hindrance for obtaining and sustaining the plausibility of institutional meaning. The contestation of public norms urges us all to define and redefine institutional meaning. This might also provide the incentive for institutional innovation to occur.

The worst-case scenario for the conveyance of institutions is not a conflict or stalemate over the identification of public norms, but rather, it is the absence of public debate on their meaning because the attention of the public and of politics has moved on to other interests and platforms (such as fast communication in social media, or managerial and instrumental styles of policy-making in the professionalized societies of today). This situation can be seen in the Dutch case, as will be explored in the next section, where a new generation of environmental planning and legislation has been rolled out without even addressing and debating the essence of public norms. This is a representation of the growing problem of ignorance (if not indifference) to institutional meaning, where the institutional dimension is no longer familiar to the prevailing modes of acting and thinking.

In this book, I seek to address the ignorance shown toward institutions, in a bid to combat the increasing instrumentalism in the justification and effectuation of public action. In processes of planning and policy-making, it can be observed that the public dialogue and action have shifted from identifying and redefining public norms, toward the purposive challenges of identifying objectives and social problems and then targeting assumed solutions. Obviously, any planning process is driven by the aspiration to, or the need to, tackle social problems: it is the core motivation or raison d’être of being a planner, both in practice and in research. I do not seek to disparage the responsiveness of the discipline to social problems. However, following this responsive strategy without attention to the – more abstract – normative conditions and the critical process of contextualizing these normative conditions within the pursuit of purposive practices of action, would transform the processes of public action in “legal instrumentalism” (Tamanaha, 2006). The step of abstraction to think and act institutionally requires a deliberate choice from both the practitioner and the researcher. The ignorance of this step has permeated the practices of planning, legislation, and policy-making so widely that politicians, regulators, and planners (as well as the citizens, market actors, and social organizations involved in the processes of public action) do not even expect the deliberation of public action to be about public norms.

In planning theory, two streams of thought are relevant in conceptualizing the contention of double accountability in public action: the philosophy of pragmatism and the importance of institutional thinking. Briefly summarized, the philosophy of pragmatism claims that public action has to be justified by searching for deliberate solutions to the perceived problems of the public. Alongside aspirations, the philosophy of pragmatism also incorporates a reflection on norms. However, this pragmatic reflection validates both norms and aspirations exclusively through the problem solving consequences of public action. Institutional theories claim that the accountability of public action requires justification by normative conditions to action (it does not focus on the consequences of performance but on the normative conditions for performance). I would argue that both the practical and the normative justification of planning are needed for a complete justification of public action. Although they may have different points of focus, the roles of pragmatism and institutionalism are complementary and one might expect an intensive exchange between the two streams of thought. The justification of planning consists of pragmatic and consequential considerations of legitimacy while simultaneously accounting for the normative conditions in the processes of action. In this way, both approaches might reinforce each other. However, a cross-pollination of the two approaches is, at present, easier imagined than apparent in either research or practice. Both streams of thought have a long historic tradition in social sciences, yet their interconnectivity appears to be very thin because of their divergent underlying rationalities. The solution for one, all too frequently, appears to be a problem for the other. An abstract and critical feedback on public norms is not a matter of routine in the concrete justification of pragmatic processes. As Hayek stated “rules are not part of a plan of action but rather equipment for certain unknown contingencies” (Hayek, 1973–1979, Vol. 1, p. 23). Also, vice versa, institutional justification tends to be removed of the experiments and practical consequences of action. In planning studies today, the pragmatic conceptions have become the primary source of inspiration for approaches to planning, with manifestations in the interactive, communicative, and learning turns in planning. In practice, it is less straightforward to avoid conflict between the different ways of accounting for public action when compared to research. There are positive examples of a productive interconnectivity between the two approaches although it appears to be difficult to maintain and there is a propensity for such interactions to be fragile.

The Case of Spatial Planning and Planning Law in the Netherlands

While facing urgent challenges of planning, the main part of this book explores possible ways of new conceptualization. Before exploring the dialectic of institutional and pragmatic approaches in depth, it is necessary to explain first of all what difference institutional analysis can make. Why is it so important to thoroughly consider institutions and seek a dialectic with pragmatic analysis, what is in it for practice? Institutional abstraction is needed to enable a very critical assessment of ongoing practices of planning and public action. To demonstrate the difference that institutional analysis can make, I will discuss in the next extensive section – in base lines – the fifty years’ history of strategic planning and planning legislation in the Netherlands, revealing the rise, the fall, and recent rebirth of strategic spatial and environmental planning at the national level, which has culminated in new comprehensive legislation on environment and planning (for a more extensive empirical study, see Salet, 2016, 2017). I selected this particular case because it received a lot of international attention, and it has been, for some decades, one of the model showcases for strategic spatial planning.

It is hoped that this case will illustrate how the current styles of planning, governing, and legislation have converged into a prevailing culture of “public management” and how dramatic the consequences of this tendency can be, not only for legitimation but also for the effectuation of the purposes of planning. The case will exemplify how administrations – in a liberalizing epoch of hybrid and plural forms of governance – have converted to a style of governing, policy-making, and legislation that resembles “public management.” It will exemplify how the weariness of formal hierarchy, legal obligation, and procedural thickness (the increased need of flexibility and negotiation or dialogue with social stakeholders) actually led to institutional volatility and lacking institutional accountability. It may also demonstrate that institutional norms do not organize the inertia and opaqueness of organization but question the relational grammar of politics and power. I finally hope that it will illustrate the need to involve in the progress of purposive planning mission, the normative search of appropriaten...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsement
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Foreword
• Preface
• 1 The Evaporation of Institutions: Institutions – Between Viscosity and Volatility
• 2 Public Norms and Aspirations: The Precursors
• 3 Legitimacy in Action: The Logic of Pragmatism and Institutional Legality
• 4 How to Investigate Institutions: The Relevance of Paradigm
• 5 Five Paradigms of Institutional Planning
• 6 Institutions in Action: The Changing City-Region
• Index